 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hahahaha... OK, check this out. I just saw an advert for a "Notebook
privacy filter":
- Fits 1.54" widescreen notebook computers.
- Keeps information confidential even in high traffic areas.
- Only persons directly in front of the monitor can see the image on screen.
...in other words, it reduces the viewing angle. (You know, the thing
Notebook manufacturers have just spend the last 20 years trying to
increase.) WTF?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> ...in other words, it reduces the viewing angle. (You know, the thing
> Notebook manufacturers have just spend the last 20 years trying to
> increase.) WTF?
Yeah, I hate how LCD screens appear so washed out when you're not
sitting directly in front of them. Also, I learned recently that LCD
screens are not immune to Van Eck Phreaking. I wonder if electronic
paper is?
-Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> ...in other words, it reduces the viewing angle. (You know, the thing
>> Notebook manufacturers have just spend the last 20 years trying to
>> increase.) WTF?
>
> Yeah, I hate how LCD screens appear so washed out when you're not
> sitting directly in front of them.
Depends on the screen. My old laptop is hopeless; you can never get more
than 20% of the screen visible at once. The other 80% comes out with all
the colours inverted. But my new laptop is completely different. Even
when viewed from quite a sharp angle, it's still at least readable, and
certainly in normal use the colours are all fine.
...unless you fit this device. :-P
> Also, I learned recently that LCD
> screens are not immune to Van Eck Phreaking. I wonder if electronic
> paper is?
I think you'll find it's the display cable rather than the display
itself which it putting out detectable radio waves.
If it makes you feel any better, the human brain leaks both electrical
and magnetic signals which are detectable too. As do all your muscles,
by the way. That's one of the main ways sharks hunt - by sensing
electronic nerve pulses.
But you knew that already... ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible schrieb:
> Hahahaha... OK, check this out. I just saw an advert for a "Notebook
> privacy filter":
>
> - Fits 1.54" widescreen notebook computers.
That's not /particularly/ "widescreen" I'd say :-P
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
SharkD schrieb:
> Yeah, I hate how LCD screens appear so washed out when you're not
> sitting directly in front of them. Also, I learned recently that LCD
> screens are not immune to Van Eck Phreaking. I wonder if electronic
> paper is?
Starting with LCDs, it's not so much a question of display, but rather
of data transmission between computer and display. It's the tradition of
transmitting the whole image N times per second that leaves LC displays
still prone to such types of attacks.
With e-paper, it would appear prudent to transmit only changes in the
image buffer (so that an eavesdropper couldn't afford to miss a single
bit), but it is yet to be seen whether this will happen. After all, even
with contemporary displays it would appear to me much more efficient to
transmit only the delta of information, at least for everyday office use.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka wrote:
> SharkD schrieb:
>> Yeah, I hate how LCD screens appear so washed out when you're not
>> sitting directly in front of them. Also, I learned recently that LCD
>> screens are not immune to Van Eck Phreaking. I wonder if electronic
>> paper is?
>
> Starting with LCDs, it's not so much a question of display, but rather
> of data transmission between computer and display. It's the tradition of
> transmitting the whole image N times per second that leaves LC displays
> still prone to such types of attacks.
>
>
> With e-paper, it would appear prudent to transmit only changes in the
> image buffer (so that an eavesdropper couldn't afford to miss a single
> bit), but it is yet to be seen whether this will happen. After all, even
> with contemporary displays it would appear to me much more efficient to
> transmit only the delta of information, at least for everyday office use.
Why not just transmit the data encrypted?
Oh, wait...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka wrote:
>> - Fits 1.54" widescreen notebook computers.
>
> That's not /particularly/ "widescreen" I'd say :-P
It might be. The aspect ratio isn't specified. Though, I'd have to say
if it fits a 1.54" screen, the applications for this privacy shield are
rather... limited.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 15:16:29 +0200, clipka wrote:
> Invisible schrieb:
>> Hahahaha... OK, check this out. I just saw an advert for a "Notebook
>> privacy filter":
>>
>> - Fits 1.54" widescreen notebook computers.
>
> That's not /particularly/ "widescreen" I'd say :-P
That was my thought. ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 23-9-2009 16:59, Mike Raiford wrote:
> clipka wrote:
>
>>> - Fits 1.54" widescreen notebook computers.
>>
>> That's not /particularly/ "widescreen" I'd say :-P
>
> It might be. The aspect ratio isn't specified. Though, I'd have to say
> if it fits a 1.54" screen, the applications for this privacy shield are
> rather... limited.
>
That is about the size of a watch. So perhaps we are talking about
goggles. Which are indeed only viewable for one person. So, what was the
point?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com> wrote:
> clipka wrote:
> >> - Fits 1.54" widescreen notebook computers.
> >
> > That's not /particularly/ "widescreen" I'd say :-P
> It might be. The aspect ratio isn't specified.
I think he referred to the absolute measurement rather than a relative
one. A very small screen cannot be considered very "wide", compared to
larger screens.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> I think he referred to the absolute measurement rather than a relative
> one. A very small screen cannot be considered very "wide", compared to
> larger screens.
Yes, but widescreen infers a wide aspect ratio. Not necessarily a large
screen.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> - Fits 1.54" widescreen notebook computers.
>
> That's not /particularly/ "widescreen" I'd say :-P
As should be obvious to anyone with half a brain, I merely put the
decimal place in the wrong position; the correct size is of course 15.4".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
>>> - Fits 1.54" widescreen notebook computers.
>>
>> That's not /particularly/ "widescreen" I'd say :-P
>
> As should be obvious to anyone with half a brain, I merely put the
> decimal place in the wrong position; the correct size is of course 15.4".
Less obvious to those with full brains. :)
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible schrieb:
>>> - Fits 1.54" widescreen notebook computers.
>>
>> That's not /particularly/ "widescreen" I'd say :-P
>
> As should be obvious to anyone with half a brain, I merely put the
> decimal place in the wrong position; the correct size is of course 15.4".
As should be obvious to anyone with the other half brain, my comment was
entirely humorous in nature :-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 16:16:08 +0100, Invisible wrote:
>>> - Fits 1.54" widescreen notebook computers.
>>
>> That's not /particularly/ "widescreen" I'd say :-P
>
> As should be obvious to anyone with half a brain, I merely put the
> decimal place in the wrong position; the correct size is of course
> 15.4".
Well, yeah, but it's not as funny that way. ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Hahahaha... OK, check this out. I just saw an advert for a "Notebook
> privacy filter":
>
> - Fits 1.54" widescreen notebook computers.
>
> - Keeps information confidential even in high traffic areas.
>
> - Only persons directly in front of the monitor can see the image on
> screen.
>
> ...in other words, it reduces the viewing angle. (You know, the thing
> Notebook manufacturers have just spend the last 20 years trying to
> increase.) WTF?
It allows you to work on the plane, train etc on confidential stuff, also
good for meetings if you're sat next to the customer :-) We got a few free
samples from 3M for our laptops, it works pretty well. It comes with some
small clips that you stick onto the laptop, so you can attach and remove the
filter easily. There is some electronic version going around (ie you can
control from software whether the viewing angle is wide or narrow) not sure
if it is in any product yet (probably some phone in Japan!).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott schrieb:
> There is some electronic version
> going around (ie you can control from software whether the viewing angle
> is wide or narrow) not sure if it is in any product yet (probably some
> phone in Japan!).
That would explain the 1.54" :-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
